Ross Stores holds the cleaner structural position, with the lead spread across growth and valuation. lululemon athletica still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Ross Stores is in better shape — its trend is intact while lululemon athletica's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Ross Stores's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
Most of the lead runs through growth, while stability helps make the separation broader. Ross Stores, Inc. leads by 11 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Apparel Retail
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. LULU and ROST share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how lululemon athletica and Ross Stores each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The price setup looks more supportive for Ross Stores, Inc., but lululemon athletica inc. still has the stronger structure.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for lululemon athletica, with a forward P/E that is 14.4 turns lower there.
The growth edge is decisive, even though current pricing and valuation still lean somewhat toward lululemon athletica inc..
Break down the LULU vs ROST comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how LULU and ROST each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.